The hilarious difference between Republican "free stuff" and Democratic "free stuff"

[Contumacious]

So. . . . let me get this straight. You think keeping your own money is. . . . .free stuff? Is that your argument?

Lol is that how you feel about oil subsidies? Tell me, if you use government services like highways, shouldn't you pay the tax for them?

My company doesn't receive any oil subsidies. Could you point to where I could get some though? I would greatly appreciate it.

Um. . . . See, subsidies are tax breaks on TAXES that the nation feels you should otherwise be paying. I'm sure you receive them, you just aren't aware that you are receiving them, because, well, you aren't taxed. That is what a subsidy usually is, it's a TAX BREAK.

Secondly, if you aren't receiving much of a tax break, or any, then it is because you are producing the WRONG KIND of energy. Oil, gas, and coal receive very little subsidy any more compared to wind and solar. I found one chart, though it is very dated. However, I'm sure that things haven't gotten much better.

This is one of the reasons why, when ever I here the loons crow about how wind and solar are giving oil and coal a run for their money, I have to roll my eyes. The government has SO manipulated the market, it is a complete sham.

Sorry, but you don't really know all that much. The government helped oil, gas and coal when those industries were just beginning. You don't think Oil companies figured out how to drill a mile below the ocean on their own do you? Just like everything else, government, especially government organizations like NASA, foot the most of the bill in new technologies before it's able to stand on it's own. What I want to know is why subsidies for oil, coal and gas are higher now than in 1999.

The US government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to help any industry.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

There were no experts that could have shown BP, Transocean and Halliburton how to drill for oil 1 mile or more below sea level.


The US Government and the enviro-nazis were responsible for the tragedy but as per usual federal judges are sworn to defend and support the federal government.


.
...

 

[Eaglewings]

We are so deep in the shit from basically every politician who claims to be the one who will change everything...

Everywhere we look cable, commercials, food, drugs,transportation , healthcare....Taxes......ect. Are bleeding us dry.

One party blames the other but they all do it, while they vote in the best retirement fund for themselves who some only work one term..I mean WTF

 

[MisterBeale]

So. . . . let me get this straight. You think keeping your own money is. . . . .free stuff? Is that your argument?

Lol is that how you feel about oil subsidies? Tell me, if you use government services like highways, shouldn't you pay the tax for them?

My company doesn't receive any oil subsidies. Could you point to where I could get some though? I would greatly appreciate it.

Um. . . . See, subsidies are tax breaks on TAXES that the nation feels you should otherwise be paying. I'm sure you receive them, you just aren't aware that you are receiving them, because, well, you aren't taxed. That is what a subsidy usually is, it's a TAX BREAK.

Secondly, if you aren't receiving much of a tax break, or any, then it is because you are producing the WRONG KIND of energy. Oil, gas, and coal receive very little subsidy any more compared to wind and solar. I found one chart, though it is very dated. However, I'm sure that things haven't gotten much better.

This is one of the reasons why, when ever I here the loons crow about how wind and solar are giving oil and coal a run for their money, I have to roll my eyes. The government has SO manipulated the market, it is a complete sham.

Sorry, but you don't really know all that much. The government helped oil, gas and coal when those industries were just beginning. You don't think Oil companies figured out how to drill a mile below the ocean on their own do you? Just like everything else, government, especially government organizations like NASA, foot the most of the bill in new technologies before it's able to stand on it's own. What I want to know is why subsidies for oil, coal and gas are higher now than in 1999.

The US government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to help any industry.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

There were no experts that could have shown BP, Transocean and Halliburton how to drill for oil 1 mile or more below sea level.


The US Government and the enviro-nazis were responsible for the tragedy but as per usual federal judges are sworn to defend and support the federal government.


.
...

Agreed.

At this point, Rdeanie as been caught posting stupid crap, so he is doubling down on stupid. Now he is just making stuff up. I'd like him to back up his babbling with some sources. The stuff he is posting now is so far beyond the pale, it is just ludicrous. NASA is a government agency that doesn't do any of it's own work, it subcontracts out to private researchers, organizations and the free market to get it's work done for it. Rdean somehow thinks "the government" does things, it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. It usually is the least efficient way of getting anything done. (I'm thinking he drank the Kool-aid and actually believes that whole media/government propaganda shit of "You didn't build that" )

I don't think he has a clue how "subsidies" (i.e. tax breaks) work.

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil"
Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For

“Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources


The ongoing debate in Washington over the possible repeal of what news media outlets commonly refer to as “subsidies” to the oil and gas industry has been an ongoing source of amusement and consternation to those who work in the industry for four years now. It’s somewhat amusing given the reality that, as Harold Hamm told a recent congressional hearing, the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government, but frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately.


The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.


So how did all of this misinformation get started? It all began in 2009. Within days of being sworn in as the nation’s 44th President, Barack Obama ordered his staff to scour the tax code for any provision that was relevant to the oil and gas industry, and promptly began proposing them for repeal. The oil and gas industry has always been an easy target for political demagoguery, and that dynamic has played out repeatedly and consistently in this Administration.


Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.


Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

 

[rdean]

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy?

Doesn't matter. Neither should be job of government.

If we listened to Republicans and what the job of government should be, we would have not interstate highway system and the great plains would still be a dust bowl.

 

[MisterBeale]

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy?

Doesn't matter. Neither should be job of government.

If we listened to Republicans and what the job of government should be, we would have not interstate highway system and the great plains would still be a dust bowl.

If you are going to hit the bottle, quit posting and just watch TV.

 

[dblack]

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy?

Doesn't matter. Neither should be job of government.

If we listened to Republicans and what the job of government should be, we would have not interstate highway system and the great plains would still be a dust bowl.

I'm not a Republican, rdouche.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Have you noticed, when Democrats talk about helping the middle class and poor, they bring up education, daycare, school lunches, health care, infrastructure and so on? Typically revolving around learning and building. Republicans call all that "free stuff" in voices dripping with scorn and derision.

When Republicans talk about helping the middle class and poor, they talk about cutting food stamps and welfare for the poor, which will make them work. They talk about cutting corporate taxes re eliminating them altogether. They talk about tax cuts for the wealthy because they are the job creators and they want to block immigrants from coming here because immigrants will take their minimum wage, low skills job.

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy? And I wonder why subsidies and not paying tax isn't "free stuff"? Seems what Republicans are doing costs even more.

I really don't give a shit about the country as a whole. I don't know anyone who wakes up and says to themselves "today I'm going to rebuild the country". Most people wake up and think of ways of succeeding in their own lives. That is what America great which is the idea that the individual is free to pursue whatever goal they have in their own lives.

 

[rdean]

Lol is that how you feel about oil subsidies? Tell me, if you use government services like highways, shouldn't you pay the tax for them?

My company doesn't receive any oil subsidies. Could you point to where I could get some though? I would greatly appreciate it.

Um. . . . See, subsidies are tax breaks on TAXES that the nation feels you should otherwise be paying. I'm sure you receive them, you just aren't aware that you are receiving them, because, well, you aren't taxed. That is what a subsidy usually is, it's a TAX BREAK.

Secondly, if you aren't receiving much of a tax break, or any, then it is because you are producing the WRONG KIND of energy. Oil, gas, and coal receive very little subsidy any more compared to wind and solar. I found one chart, though it is very dated. However, I'm sure that things haven't gotten much better.

This is one of the reasons why, when ever I here the loons crow about how wind and solar are giving oil and coal a run for their money, I have to roll my eyes. The government has SO manipulated the market, it is a complete sham.

Sorry, but you don't really know all that much. The government helped oil, gas and coal when those industries were just beginning. You don't think Oil companies figured out how to drill a mile below the ocean on their own do you? Just like everything else, government, especially government organizations like NASA, foot the most of the bill in new technologies before it's able to stand on it's own. What I want to know is why subsidies for oil, coal and gas are higher now than in 1999.

The US government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to help any industry.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

There were no experts that could have shown BP, Transocean and Halliburton how to drill for oil 1 mile or more below sea level.


The US Government and the enviro-nazis were responsible for the tragedy but as per usual federal judges are sworn to defend and support the federal government.


.
...

Agreed.

At this point, Rdeanie as been caught posting stupid crap, so he is doubling down on stupid. Now he is just making stuff up. I'd like him to back up his babbling with some sources. The stuff he is posting now is so far beyond the pale, it is just ludicrous. NASA is a government agency that doesn't do any of it's own work, it subcontracts out to private researchers, organizations and the free market to get it's work done for it. Rdean somehow thinks "the government" does things, it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. It usually is the least efficient way of getting anything done. (I'm thinking he drank the Kool-aid and actually believes that whole media/government propaganda shit of "You didn't build that" )

I don't think he has a clue how "subsidies" (i.e. tax breaks) work.

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil"
Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For

“Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources


The ongoing debate in Washington over the possible repeal of what news media outlets commonly refer to as “subsidies” to the oil and gas industry has been an ongoing source of amusement and consternation to those who work in the industry for four years now. It’s somewhat amusing given the reality that, as Harold Hamm told a recent congressional hearing, the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government, but frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately.


The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.


So how did all of this misinformation get started? It all began in 2009. Within days of being sworn in as the nation’s 44th President, Barack Obama ordered his staff to scour the tax code for any provision that was relevant to the oil and gas industry, and promptly began proposing them for repeal. The oil and gas industry has always been an easy target for political demagoguery, and that dynamic has played out repeatedly and consistently in this Administration.


Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.


Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

NASA, just a bunch of bureaucrats. Yea, right:

NASAJobs

NASA Jobs

NASA - NASA Engineers and Scientists-Transforming Dreams Into Reality

9 Mindblowing Things We've Already Discovered in Space This Year Alone

I spent two weeks at White Sands installing two Cone Calorimeters they bought from the company I used to work at.

Some years ago, astronauts died in a capsule sitting on the launch pad because the oxygen enriched environment caught fire and the people inside died. This instrument determines the temperature at which material ignites and it measures the rate of burn, the amount that's turned into toxic gas and the make up of those toxic fumes. On the left hand side under the large black panel are a gas analyzer, a computer and the larger gas analyzer. The tubes on the front are basically desiccators filled with Drierite and Ascarite. I designed an internal non vibrating stand for the large analyzer on the bottom left. I also worked with another engineer to design a vitiated system which fed an oxygen enriched flow to the burn chamber surrounded by glass on the right.

Like I said, I spent two weeks at NASA and I can assure you, there is lots going on that does not include scientists and engineers from the outside. During that time, scientists and engineers came by and swept us up to go watch experiments. Like everyone else, they wanted to show off and being out there in the desert, there really isn't anyone to show off to.
We watched rocket fuel burn while underground and behind two inches of black glass that wasn't supposed to spark and it looked like a sparkler from the forth of July. Did they ever cuss. We also saw a huge piece of canvas behind a rocket that wasn't supposed to burn. It did of course, but after a very long time. They hugged and danced around.
I was in the military and had a secret clearance. My records were checked and I was allowed to go. The other two guys I was with were subject to a more extensive background check because they were not ever in the military.
It was fun. I've been around. I know what I'm talking about. Clearly, you don't.

 

[Arianrhod]

Why are GOOPers so afraid of education, healthcare, immigration, etc., etc., ,etc.?

Is it because they're ignorant, uninformed, mostly obese, monolingual (and struggling to communicate in English as a First Language), and only able to express themselves in badly spelled obscenities?

No, that can't be it. There must be some other reason why they're stone resistant to anything that will benefit their country.

 

[Rustic]

Have you noticed, when Democrats talk about helping the middle class and poor, they bring up education, daycare, school lunches, health care, infrastructure and so on? Typically revolving around learning and building. Republicans call all that "free stuff" in voices dripping with scorn and derision.

When Republicans talk about helping the middle class and poor, they talk about cutting food stamps and welfare for the poor, which will make them work. They talk about cutting corporate taxes re eliminating them altogether. They talk about tax cuts for the wealthy because they are the job creators and they want to block immigrants from coming here because immigrants will take their minimum wage, low skills job.

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy? And I wonder why subsidies and not paying tax isn't "free stuff"? Seems what Republicans are doing costs even more.

The country is broke...

 

[Blackrook]

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy?

Doesn't matter. Neither should be job of government.

If we listened to Republicans and what the job of government should be, we would have not interstate highway system and the great plains would still be a dust bowl.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and DefenseHighways Act (Public Law 84-627), was enacted on June 29, 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law.

rdean,

You make up shit that Republicans wouldn't build the interstate highway, and I looked it up on Google, guess what, the interstate highway act was signed into law by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

rdean, you are officially on the shit list of people not be trusted.

 

[Arianrhod]

Have you noticed, when Democrats talk about helping the middle class and poor, they bring up education, daycare, school lunches, health care, infrastructure and so on? Typically revolving around learning and building. Republicans call all that "free stuff" in voices dripping with scorn and derision.

When Republicans talk about helping the middle class and poor, they talk about cutting food stamps and welfare for the poor, which will make them work. They talk about cutting corporate taxes re eliminating them altogether. They talk about tax cuts for the wealthy because they are the job creators and they want to block immigrants from coming here because immigrants will take their minimum wage, low skills job.

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy? And I wonder why subsidies and not paying tax isn't "free stuff"? Seems what Republicans are doing costs even more.

The country is broke...

Your country? That's unfortunate. Maybe you can emigrate to America. Legally, of course.

 

[MisterBeale]

Have you noticed, when Democrats talk about helping the middle class and poor, they bring up education, daycare, school lunches, health care, infrastructure and so on? Typically revolving around learning and building. Republicans call all that "free stuff" in voices dripping with scorn and derision.

When Republicans talk about helping the middle class and poor, they talk about cutting food stamps and welfare for the poor, which will make them work. They talk about cutting corporate taxes re eliminating them altogether. They talk about tax cuts for the wealthy because they are the job creators and they want to block immigrants from coming here because immigrants will take their minimum wage, low skills job.

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy? And I wonder why subsidies and not paying tax isn't "free stuff"? Seems what Republicans are doing costs even more.

The country is broke...

We should be so lucky to be broke.

It's beyond broke. It so far into debt, one would have to be a dreamer to imagine it will ever be out of debt.

 

[Rustic]

We are so broke as an country we are paying debt with debt, and thinking Insanly, it's possible to balance a budget... Lol

 

[MisterBeale]

I spent two weeks at White Sands installing two Cone Calorimeters they bought from the company I used to work at.

So NASA bought two Cone Calorimeters from a private company you work for using tax dollars, to employ people at NASA the government hired, once again using more tax dollars, is that right?

And those folks the government hired? We can assume they paid for their own education, right?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Lol is that how you feel about oil subsidies? Tell me, if you use government services like highways, shouldn't you pay the tax for them?

My company doesn't receive any oil subsidies. Could you point to where I could get some though? I would greatly appreciate it.

Um. . . . See, subsidies are tax breaks on TAXES that the nation feels you should otherwise be paying. I'm sure you receive them, you just aren't aware that you are receiving them, because, well, you aren't taxed. That is what a subsidy usually is, it's a TAX BREAK.

Secondly, if you aren't receiving much of a tax break, or any, then it is because you are producing the WRONG KIND of energy. Oil, gas, and coal receive very little subsidy any more compared to wind and solar. I found one chart, though it is very dated. However, I'm sure that things haven't gotten much better.

This is one of the reasons why, when ever I here the loons crow about how wind and solar are giving oil and coal a run for their money, I have to roll my eyes. The government has SO manipulated the market, it is a complete sham.

Sorry, but you don't really know all that much. The government helped oil, gas and coal when those industries were just beginning. You don't think Oil companies figured out how to drill a mile below the ocean on their own do you? Just like everything else, government, especially government organizations like NASA, foot the most of the bill in new technologies before it's able to stand on it's own. What I want to know is why subsidies for oil, coal and gas are higher now than in 1999.

The US government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to help any industry.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

There were no experts that could have shown BP, Transocean and Halliburton how to drill for oil 1 mile or more below sea level.


The US Government and the enviro-nazis were responsible for the tragedy but as per usual federal judges are sworn to defend and support the federal government.


.
...

Agreed.

At this point, Rdeanie as been caught posting stupid crap, so he is doubling down on stupid. Now he is just making stuff up. I'd like him to back up his babbling with some sources. The stuff he is posting now is so far beyond the pale, it is just ludicrous. NASA is a government agency that doesn't do any of it's own work, it subcontracts out to private researchers, organizations and the free market to get it's work done for it. Rdean somehow thinks "the government" does things, it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. It usually is the least efficient way of getting anything done. (I'm thinking he drank the Kool-aid and actually believes that whole media/government propaganda shit of "You didn't build that" )

I don't think he has a clue how "subsidies" (i.e. tax breaks) work.

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil"
Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For

“Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources


The ongoing debate in Washington over the possible repeal of what news media outlets commonly refer to as “subsidies” to the oil and gas industry has been an ongoing source of amusement and consternation to those who work in the industry for four years now. It’s somewhat amusing given the reality that, as Harold Hamm told a recent congressional hearing, the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government, but frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately.


The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.


So how did all of this misinformation get started? It all began in 2009. Within days of being sworn in as the nation’s 44th President, Barack Obama ordered his staff to scour the tax code for any provision that was relevant to the oil and gas industry, and promptly began proposing them for repeal. The oil and gas industry has always been an easy target for political demagoguery, and that dynamic has played out repeatedly and consistently in this Administration.


Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.


Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

And yet, it took me less than five minutes to research the internet and discover that your whole premise is incorrect, because congress NEVER REPEALED the Big Oil tax breaks:

Senate Fails to Cut Favors to Big Oil, Once Again - Oil Change International

You have been outed, Mr Beale.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"2012 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduces the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, which would end $2.4 billion in tax breaks for the big five oil companies. Obama challenges Congress to "eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away." Unable to get filibuster-proof support, it dies.
Mitt Romney says oil subsidies go "largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth." He says he'd consider cutting them—if tax rates were slashed first.
The American Petroleum Institute launches a $3 millionpostelection media blitz, including ads that warn seven Democratic senators up for reelection in 2014 against touching the industry's tax breaks: "American energy—not higher taxes on energy—will create jobs."

2013 Despite talk of everything being "on the table," oil's tax perks survive the fiscal-cliff negotiations.
Congressional Democrats introduce five bills targeting tax giveaways for oil and gas companies. Their death is all but assured, especially in the Republican-controlled House.
In April, Obama introduces his 2014 budget, which includes $23 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency over 10 years and permanent tax cuts for renewable power generation. It also would end "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." In contrast, the gop budget proposed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan targets "federal intervention and corporate-welfare spending" by cutting subsidies for renewables. Tax breaks for oil are left untouched."

There will be subsidies: A brief history of tax breaks for oil companies

 

[Arianrhod]

the interstate highway act was signed into law by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Yep, and you're driving on it, even though your grandparents paid for it. Moocher.

Eisenhower is also the guy who said this: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

 

[Blackrook]

the interstate highway act was signed into law by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Yep, and you're driving on it, even though your grandparents paid for it. Moocher.

Wow, you're stupid.

 

[Mustang]

Have you noticed, when Democrats talk about helping the middle class and poor, they bring up education, daycare, school lunches, health care, infrastructure and so on? Typically revolving around learning and building. Republicans call all that "free stuff" in voices dripping with scorn and derision.

When Republicans talk about helping the middle class and poor, they talk about cutting food stamps and welfare for the poor, which will make them work. They talk about cutting corporate taxes re eliminating them altogether. They talk about tax cuts for the wealthy because they are the job creators and they want to block immigrants from coming here because immigrants will take their minimum wage, low skills job.

I wonder which actually costs the country more, helping the middle class rebuild the country or shoveling money to the wealthy? And I wonder why subsidies and not paying tax isn't "free stuff"? Seems what Republicans are doing costs even more.

Another good question to ask is this:

Why is it that even though income inequality has risen steadily (even sharply) in the last couple of decades, and the wealthy now have a higher share of the national wealth and national income than any time in recent memory, that today's Republicans are STILL talking about giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans? It defies common sense.

I can't help be reminded of the repeated line from the movie, Philadelphia.

Can someone explain that to me like I'm a 4 year old?